Wrong again. They were specifically talking about the Articles of Confederation, as my quote made clear. The decision was made in 1795, but the acts in question occured before 1780. Long before the Constitution was ratified. Finally, Penhallow was basically a property case. Secession was not an issue before the court, therefore even if 3 of 4 justices held that a state may UNILATERALLY secede such statements were not binding. Or do I need to take you on my knee and explain, yet again, what obiter dictum means?
Wrong - .
Finally, Penhallow was basically a property case.
Wrong. Patterson made certain that brain dead morons would understand it was one of jurisdiction. At the bar was he issue of jurisdiction - whether or not each of the adjudicating bodies had jurisdiction to hear the case. And to that he responded that as long as the state remained in the union they did.
Secession was not an issue before the court, therefore even if 3 of 4 justices held that a state may UNILATERALLY secede such statements were not binding.
My God you're obtuse. If the state had withdrawn herself the issue would be moot.
Or do I need to take you on my knee and explain, yet again, what obiter dictum means?
One justice writing that unilateral secession was legal might be considered dictum, but three holding that unilateral secession was legal is ample evidence that it was foundational, and not obiter dicta.
Regarding you perverted wishes to take someone across your knee, no thanks.